The AV camp is being funded by a corporate interest. So what?

Why is it, nowadays, that whenever someone wants to put down a cause, they look for a vested interest? The latest example is on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog by Ed Howker. Apparently – big surprise this one – the pro-AV camp is being funded by the Electoral Reform Society, which in turn owns “Britain's number one vendor of ballot papers and vote counting services”. This, Howker says, is a “massive conflict of interest of such comical proportions that even Berlusconi would blush”.

The post is flying around Twitter, but so what? That you have a vested interest might incline you towards a view, but it doesn’t automatically make your argument wrong. And with electoral reform, if you’re looking for a vested interest, perhaps consider the alliance of Right-wing Tories and Labour dinosaurs determined to bring about a No vote. Mightn’t they, just possibly, want to hang onto their seats? Does that automatically make them wrong? Of course not.

It is usually right to expose vested interests. But when accusations about motives drown out actual debate, as they increasingly seem to be doing, it is not helpful. If every hypocrite with a vested interest was forced to shut up, we would never get anywhere.